Zone1 Should A Handful Of Billionaires Own More Wealth Than The Bottom 50% Of All Americans?

[jc456]

Wow, name-calling in a zone 1 forum!

If someone is Mo Ron, how is that name calling?

 

[BS Filter]

They meet with Republicans actually and discuss what tax breaks they can get and how little actually has to go to the employees

Top 50 Democrats

They claim that taxing the high earners is the way forward... maybe these guys should look closer to home? In this Top 50 Richest Democrats list, find out how much each Democrat takes home. When you look at the hefty figures, you’ll, no doubt, agree with the above statement.

www.celebritynetworth.com

 

[rightwinger]

Top 50 Democrats

They claim that taxing the high earners is the way forward... maybe these guys should look closer to home? In this Top 50 Richest Democrats list, find out how much each Democrat takes home. When you look at the hefty figures, you’ll, no doubt, agree with the above statement.

www.celebritynetworth.com

Nice list…Rich Democrats support more taxes on the rich

Rich Republicans support fewer benefits for the poor

 

[Woodznutz]

Capitalism is a dying and obsolete system of production that will soon be replaced with a modern, high-tech non-profit mode of production. Ironically if anyone needs to grow up and educate himself, it's you, the 80-year-old sociopath who believes the solution to homelessness in America is depopulation i.e. "culling the herd" (you can start with yourself by finding the nearest cliff). The sooner people like you kick the bucket the better this country and the whole world will be. Respond to the points I made in my last post or shut up.

I'm through responding to your nonsense.

 

[BS Filter]

Nice list…Rich Democrats support more taxes on the rich

Rich Republicans support fewer benefits for the poor

Democrats support flooding the country with more poor people. Why?

 

[Red Front]

Sure thing thats why none of the communist states ever succeeded right?

The term "communist state" is an oxymoron since Marxist communism is stateless. Socialism is the process that leads to high-communism (high-tech, stateless, classless, no need for money), hence some socialists, like myself, identify with the objective, calling themselves and socialist states "communist", but in reality, there has never been a communist state and there will never be one. The USSR was the UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS. A socialist republic and state, not a communist one.

More, your reasoning is flawed and so is the information upon which you formed the premise of your question. You assume countries like Germany, Sweden, Spain, and many others with modern, industrialized economies, aren't socialist, yet these nations built their success on socialist, Marxist principles. These liberal European "social democracies", nationalize most of their heavy and vital industries, like energy, finance, mining..etc. They highly regulate markets and enforce laws that protect workers at a much higher degree than what we have here in the United States. More of their workforce is unionized. They have extensive welfare systems providing all of their citizens with free healthcare, education, and housing, and also impose rental pricing controls on landlords. etc. They have a robust, modern infrastructure, using the latest technology in the area of public transit, rail..etc. I could just go on and on listing why these countries have socialist economies, despite the objections of capitalist apologists.

Every single country that identifies itself openly as having a Marxist, socialist economy and proletariat-run political system, is threatened with war, if not actually bombed, invaded..etc, and economically sanctioned by the United States, the capitalist bully empire (the big fat gorilla in the room). So you don't have the ideological luxury of claiming that socialism doesn't work when socialist countries that openly identify themselves as such, are in a state of war against the United States and its allies or economically embargoed. If I throw you into the boxing ring with an eye patch covering one of your eyes and with one of your hands tied behind your back, do I really have an argument or reasonable criticism against your boxing performance and skills? You lost the fight, BUT you were handicapped from the start with one eye and a hand tied behind your back.

More, would have Mike Tyson performed well in the ring, back in the 1980s when he started boxing professionally, if he would've been twelve years old? Regardless of his skills, if he's a 5ft,1 twelve-year-old kid, fighting men, he's going to lose. It doesn't matter if he's an exellent fighter for his age, he's fighting adults with more resources, strength..etc. Your reasoning is flawed because you assume that if socialism or communism, is the inevitable successor of capitalism, it must replace its predecessor in one decisive victory, with a single swoop of its hammer and sickle. Capitalism didn't replace chattel slavery and feudalism overnight, and neither did republicanism (the child of capitalism), replace the kings and nobles, in one battle or revolution. It took centuries for the merchants to become powerful industrialists. The republicans didn't have their victory over the monarchists until material conditions (which includes technology), permitted them to industrialize production turning themselves into powerful, wealthy industrialists. The victory of capitalism over its predeccesors wasn't overnight, there were multiple attempts and failtures, losses, with a few victories along the way, until we reach the glorious industrial age.

Marx praised capitalism for eventually replacing chattel slavery and feudalism in Western Europe, with capitalist industrialism. He had a lot of good to say about how the capitalists defeated the European kings and nobles, replacing them with Republics.

So your metric for socialism and communism is disingenuous. It's not an honest, fair assessment of socialism's performance and potential. When you factor in all of the challenges that socialists have had in establishing a openly socialist society and economy, at a national scale, it's a miracle that the Soviet Union was able to exist for 70 years, with all of its many impressive accomplishments. Pre-soviet Russia was an under industrialized, agrarian, feudal society, comprised mostly of illiterate peasants. From 1917 to 1939, just a bit over 20 years, Soviet Russia became an industrial juggernaut and world power, more mechanized in its farming than the United States. It had laid modern infrastructure, taking tens of millions of Russians out of abject poverty. About 90% of Soviet Russia was literate by the 1940s.

This despite of being invaded in 1918 by the United States and 14 other countries:

8500 US Marines invaded Russia in 1918 to support the right-wing "white army", that was fighting the "red" socialist army i.e. Bolsheviks.
​

That invasion failed and then in June 1941, Nazi Germany invaded Soviet Russia (in Operation Barbarossa), with four million soldiers.

Seven out of ten Nazis were fighting in Russia, i.e. the eastern front. The Soviets lost 28 million people (nine million soldiers, approximately 19 million civilians). Much of its infrastructure, in its most populated centers, was destroyed and at best damaged, requiring extensive repair. Can you imagine the US losing more than 10% of its population in a war with much of its infrastructure? We have a population of 330 million people, so losing 10% of that would be over 30 million Americans dying in a war. That's never happened to us, we're surrounded and protected by two vast oceans. We weren't invaded by the Germans or Japanese. We lost 460 thousand Americans in WW2, the Soviets lost 50, 60 times that amount.

The German military was considered the most advanced and best equipped in the world at the time. Are you going to pretend all of the above, shouldn't be factored into the equation when determining the "efficacy" of socialism? You just pretend none of the above-mentioned catastrophic events and conditions matter in assessing socialism's viability. Let's conveniently forget about all of these challenges and mountains that socialists had to scale and overcome when trying to establish a socialist society and economy in Russia, the largest nation on Earth, geographically. If it wasn't for the Soviet Union you and I would probably be speaking German now and saluting a flag that looks like this...

.


The Soviet Union was the first to enter Berlin, defeating the Nazis:

They were considered our allies, until the American wealthy elite demonized everything socialist, mostly in response to the "new deal" of the 1930s. They started picking away at all of the rights and benefits acquired by the American working class, starting with the McCarthyism hysteria of the 1950s. Russia after WW2, was then fighting another war, for its survival, namely the cold war. An arms race under the specter of a nuclear holocaust. It didn't receive any financial assistance or help in raw materials from the United States, to rebuild itself, as Western Europe and Japan had through the Marshall Plan. There was no "Marshall Plan" for the USSR, they had to pick themselves up by their bootstraps.

Notwithstanding all of those challenges, the USSR became a world superpower by the late 1950s. The Soviets were launching rockets into space. The Soviet economy became the second largest in the world. They had a military that rivaled that of the United States, a nation that had over 120 years headstart of industrialization. You're just going to pretend that isn't worth considering in your criticism of socialism and the Soviet Union?

The first nuclear electric plants, the first satellites, the first living being in space...

LAIKA - THE FIRST EARTHLING IN SPACE.​

...the first man in space...

Yuri Gagarin​

The first woman in space...

Valentina Tereshkova
​

...first space walk, first spacecraft docking, first probes, first first first...etc. That motivated the US to get to the moon first.

​

Socialists in the 20th century, despite all of the challenges, were able to accomplish a great deal and to pretend otherwise is just dishonest. Here are a few other accomplishments:

Category:Soviet inventions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

10 Greastest Inventions Made By The Soviet Union

Below are ten Soviet inventions that have had a particular impact on health sciences, space exploration, and technology in everyday life.

www.worldatlas.com

First cell phones, first microwave ovens, the first organ transplants, the first artificial hearts, the first lasers, the first LED lights, and some of the first compact computers:

It was invented for factory managers to provide the government with production and logistical data.


... first first first....

Here is a very good response to the capitalist rhetoric against the USSR and socialism, by the head of the British Communist Party:





Here is Michael Parenti's ( a top scholar and expert on the USSR), very informative lecture on the USSR and the cold war, along with his views on American imperialism:




​

Here are some stats on the Soviet Economy:

Soviet Industrial Output (1940-1985)

www.marxists.org

Anyone can look up all of this information, it's available. Most of what you've heard about the USSR from American sources is BS.





​

The CIA and hundreds of NGOs, organizations funded by the US State Dept, were tasked during the cold war, in spreading BULLSHIT about the USSR and Socialism. Is everything bullshit? No. Were the Soviets angels, or saints? No. They didn't have halos glowing over their heads. Atrocities were committed, without a doubt. But are socialists the only ones who commit atrocities? The capitalists through colonialism, and imperialism, not to speak of the slave trade and how American blacks and Native Americans were treated..etc, committed plenty of atrocities. Who the hell has the moral high ground upon which to stand and point their crooked, feculent fingers at the other, with respect to death toll counts and violence? The mountain of dead stinking corpses under capitalism is at least just as high as that of communism. So no one should be appealing to death toll arguments in defense of capitalism or socialism. There are no innocents when it comes to violence. Every system and ideology has a bloody history.

 

[jc456]

red" socialist army

Red meant communist. Fk I can’t deal with your kind of ignorant. Ever hear of McCarthy?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

At the urging of Republican Senators Hawley and Rubio, a new think tank is working out ways for the GOP to changetheir messaging.

They want to shift their rhetoric from support for corporations and the morbidly rich to pretending they care about working people. This new organization will, they say, “think differently about labor vs. capital than Republicans have in recent generations.”


It’s a cynical effort to capture Trump’s working class base. He’d promised he’d bring our jobs home from China, empower labor unions, raise taxes on the rich so high that “my friends won’t ever talk to me again,” and give every American full health insurance that cost less than Obamacare. Those promises helped win him the White House.

All were lies, but the GOP base bought it and gave him tens of millions of votes; now Hawley, Rubio, et al think they can bottle that populist rhetorical magic and repeat Trump’s shtick for 2024.

Which raises the existential question both economists and politicians have debated for centuries:


America has had two different but clear answers to that question during the past century.

From the end of the Republican Great Depression with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s until 1981 (including the presidencies of Republican Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon, who maintained the top 91% and 74% income tax rates), the answer was unambiguous: “The economy is here to serve average Americans.”

Income and wealth during that time rose at about the same rate for working class Americans as they did for the rich, something we’d never before seen in this country.

This was not an accident or a mistake. It was the very intentional outcome of policies put into place by FDR and then maintained by both Democratic and Republican administrations for almost 50 years during that pre-Reagan era.

And then came the Reagan Revolution, when Republicans decided that the middle class wasn’t as important as giant corporations and the very wealthy after all, and that the rest of us are here to serve the rich.

Should a Handful of Billionaires Own More Wealth than the Bottom 50% of All Americans?

At the urging of Republican Senators Hawley and Rubio, a new think tank is working out ways for the GOP to change their messaging. They want to shift their rhetoric from support for corporations and the morbidly rich to pretending they care about...

m.dailykos.com

Im sure this will hurt the feminine sensibilities of certain moderators, so I expect it to be moved with not much intelligent input.

We need to take all their wealth: Gates, Zuckerberg, Buffett and distribute it to the masses. They can still do their respective days jobs

 

[Red Front]

We need to take all their wealth: Gates, Zuckerberg, Buffett and distribute it to the masses. They can still do their respective days jobs

Amen and amen!

 

[Red Front]

Typo correction:

" Marx praised capitalism for eventually replacing chattel slavery and feudalism in Western Europe, with capitalist industrialism. He had a lot of good to say about how the capitalists defeated the European kings and nobles, replacing them with Republics. ". I type over 100 words per minute and sometimes I make typos.

 

[Red Front]

Sure thing thats why none of the communist states ever succeeded right?

That's right buddy, that's why capitalist-run countries succeed, thanks to all of the socialist bailouts and government assistance, otherwise, they fail miserably. Capitalism depends on socialism to exist.

​

 

[Red Front]

huh, all I got was:

capital​

noun​

1. A chapter or section of a book.​

--and---

​

capital 1 of 3 adjective cap· i· tal ˈka-pə-tᵊl ˈkap-tᵊl 1 of a letter : of or conforming to the series A, B, C, etc. rather than a, b, c, etc​

--so we got to remember that there are LOTS of definitions. What's important is that you and I agree on a definition if we want to talk about it. If not, you can define it as say, "badbadbadbad" and prove it's well, bad.

There is a commonly accepted definition of the word capital, accepted by practically everyone. Either way, regardless of whether you accept the dictionary definition of capital or not, you have to commit to some type of definition. Without defining our terms we can't engage in a debate. You have to clarify and commit to a definition or a coherent discussion is impossible.

 

[Woodznutz]

Sure, why not?

The rich get that way by doing what it takes to get rich. The poor don't have the stomach for this. Once one reaches a certain level of wealth their wealth increases almost exponentially. That's what is seen in the near vertical lines on those comparative wealth graphs.

An easy way to understand this is to double a penny and the subsequent sums for thirty cycles. The first 15 or so doublings are pretty boring, and one might not see the point. However around 20 doublings things begin to get really interesting. By the time 30 doublings have occurred one is astounded at the sum total.

The rich understand that building wealth is a long game and play it that way.

 

[Red Front]

The rich get that way by doing what it takes to get rich. The poor don't have the stomach for this. Once one reaches a certain level of wealth their wealth increases almost exponentially. That's what is seen in the near vertical lines on those comparative wealth graphs.

An easy way to understand this is to double a penny and the subsequent sums for thirty cycles. The first 15 or so doublings are pretty boring, and one might not see the point. However around 20 doublings things begin to get really interesting. By the time 30 doublings have occurred one is astounded at the sum total.

The rich understand that building wealth is a long game and play it that way.

Even selling your soul to the devil.

Proverbs 23:4
Labour not to be rich: cease from thine own wisdom.

Proverbs 22:16
He that oppresseth the poor to increase his [riches, and] he that giveth to the rich, [shall] surely [come] to want.

The country that constantly bails out the rich, comes to want.

Ecclesiastes 5:12
The sleep of a labouring man [is] sweet, whether he eat little or much: but the abundance of the rich will not suffer him to sleep.

Mat 6:19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
Mat 6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
Mat 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Mat 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
Mat 6:23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Do Not Be Anxious
Mat 6:25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
Mat 6:26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
Mat 6:27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
Mat 6:28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
Mat 6:29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
Mat 6:30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
Mat 6:31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
Mat 6:32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
Mat 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Mat 6:34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.


Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
Mat 19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
Mat 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Mat 19:25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
Mat 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Mat 19:27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
Mat 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Mat 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
Mat 19:30 But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.

Act 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
Act 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.


Act 4:32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
Act 4:33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
Act 4:34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
Act 4:35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
Act 4:36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
Act 4:37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.


"But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and [into] many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." (Timothy-1 6:9-10)

"Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats" (James 2:5-6)

"Go to now, [ye] rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon [you]. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten."
James 5:1-2

"Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:" (Revelations 3:17)

 

[expat_panama]

There is a commonly accepted definition of the word capital, accepted by practically everyone. Either way, regardless of whether you accept the dictionary definition of capital ...

--and what we got are many dictionary definitions of capital. Reality is that we can define it any way we want and then we can use our definition to "prove" any thing we want.

What is important though is whether we choose to squabble or do we want to work together in a joint effort for finding the truth. fwiw, I really do promise to go out of my way to be polite.

 

[Blues Man]

Many states do in fact have open primaries, that plus the fact that we can write in any name that's not on the ballot --fwiw, I have SEEN personally a write-in win an election. More often than not tho the favorites are on the ballot.

No because not everyone can get on the ballot. Each state has requirements that are designed to make it difficult for people to get their names on a ballot.

 

[jc456]

Even selling your soul to the devil.

View attachment 741580​

Proverbs 23:4
Labour not to be rich: cease from thine own wisdom.

Proverbs 22:16
He that oppresseth the poor to increase his [riches, and] he that giveth to the rich, [shall] surely [come] to want.

The country that constantly bails out the rich, comes to want.

Ecclesiastes 5:12
The sleep of a labouring man [is] sweet, whether he eat little or much: but the abundance of the rich will not suffer him to sleep.

Mat 6:19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
Mat 6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
Mat 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Mat 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
Mat 6:23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Do Not Be Anxious
Mat 6:25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
Mat 6:26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
Mat 6:27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
Mat 6:28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
Mat 6:29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
Mat 6:30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
Mat 6:31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
Mat 6:32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
Mat 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Mat 6:34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.


Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
Mat 19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
Mat 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Mat 19:25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
Mat 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Mat 19:27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
Mat 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Mat 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
Mat 19:30 But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.

Act 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
Act 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.


Act 4:32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
Act 4:33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
Act 4:34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
Act 4:35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
Act 4:36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
Act 4:37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.


"But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and [into] many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." (Timothy-1 6:9-10)

"Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats" (James 2:5-6)

"Go to now, [ye] rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon [you]. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten."
James 5:1-2

"Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:" (Revelations 3:17)

I’d really like for you to explain why the poor don’t start their own companies, what prevents them?

 

[Woodznutz]

--and what we got are many dictionary definitions of capital. Reality is that we can define it any way we want and then we can use our definition to "prove" any thing we want.

What is important though is whether we choose to squabble or do we want to work together in a joint effort for finding the truth. fwiw, I really do promise to go out of my way to be polite.

In its simplest form labor is capital.
Sans money or machinery labor itself is the "means of production".

A woodcutter has only his ax and his labor to produce firewood. If he cuts it for himself, he is just a working man. But it he sells it for a profit he is a capitalist.

 

[Red Front]

--and what we got are many dictionary definitions of capital. Reality is that we can define it any way we want and then we can use our definition to "prove" any thing we want.

What is important though is whether we choose to squabble or do we want to work together in a joint effort for finding the truth. fwiw, I really do promise to go out of my way to be polite.

You need to improve your reading comprehension. I didn't say that you can't redefine the meaning of capital, disregarding the dictionary definition and common consensus held by most economists, including communists like myself. You can define capital as:

​

But you nonetheless, have to define your terms and commit to a defintion, or else we can't communicate. This is obvious to most people with a modicum of common sense, which apparently you seem not to have.

 

[expat_panama]

No because not everyone can get on the ballot. Each state has requirements that are designed to make it difficult for people to get their names on a ballot.

Interesting. There's this site that lists state's requirements and they say that while all allow write-in's, many have ABSOLUTELY NO requirements.